aatd86

AI still does not do pattern matching the same way my brain works. I still see things that can be improved where the AI just go with what is most common. If I nudge it, it realizes it. If I don't, I get basic software.

Just as I speak, it is reworking a UI compositor design, after I told it to use the reactive framework I have built for damage restoration, because in the end, this is a reactive problem. The implications, it drew on its own. But I had to nudge it.

Not obvious from our discussions with friends or even from videos on youtube about everyone wondering how they are ad tracked.

They care but then it has been made very difficult to find privacy preserving services. Or convenience takes over.

It is like replaceable batteries. Everyone cares but we are not given the choice.

Or the headphone jack...

I think it is different here. First it is easy to build. Second that is too much information that should remain private.

Unfortunately I can't do that. My projects are too big now. In fact, this is how I deal with projects: I build the base manually and then I can iterate with AI faster once the fundamentals are solid. Sometimes the AI tends to forget those fundamentals or tries to change those and add unnecessary stuff on top. If I stay invested in what the AI is doing, I can usually spot it and nudge the AI back to sanity.

That is how I think it should be done.

But who is going to trust Facebook/Meta with everything? Even my parents are wary of their products. I can't see a personal assistant coming from them and being successful.

Drawing cardioids in maple V while I had darkbasic pro at home and could write my own games and delve into quaternions since 3eme. :x

No wonder I failed this sht, kind of.

I don't think I can ever be motivated by such challenges. It's either I'm getting up to speed to the state of the art from the very basics and then I can try to figure out if something was missing along the way or solve unsolved useful problems, or I will not be interested.

I just can't tinker for the sake of tinkering. Too goal oriented I guess.

Just me? (that is also why school started to bore me right before high school and why I learn better on my own, I did go too College but thank god I didn't do CompSci or that would have disgusted me...)

It has to be a bell curve doesn't it.. I am too much of a perfectionist... Then again, my llms constantly claim that I am doing things that are beyond the SOTA. Even my own mom lost hope.. Still haven't shipped a single thing... haha.

(half joke aside, it is finally coming in a couple days.. which I have been saying for quite some time to the extent that my peeps don't even trust me anymore.. 3 things are coming and it is genuinely research grade apparently, for the amount of research I am aware that is released publicly. I really don't know how people ship things, the tooling I see is terrible, or maybe I have NIH syndrome...)

Of course they do, regardless of the language. That is why we have things such as string interning for instance. :)

What is a philosopher? Hopefully not someone who constantly refer to others thinking and not their own... tongue-in-cheek

me still thinking about the iRiver H320 I was lusting after...

Well if pointing out where you are mistaken is insulting, excuse me but I will keep being rude. Feel free to quit the conversation.

What you do not seem to understand is that with a normal Android distribution, you expect a phone home tied to the manufacturer of your phone.

Matter fact, as I pointed to you but you conveniently ignored, it does not have to be an 'Android' phone. It is the same for Apple and their iphones and pretty much all off the shelf phones. Not need to single out Android if your point is not about the fact that I said 'bootleg' Android...

With a bootleg Android, you forego any security, beyond the phone home. ANd you wouldn't even find someone to speak to about it. What is so difficult to understand?

Forbid a business can grow, haha

I recognize this comparison style. Definitely generated by Claude. haha

You are just not making any sense. Your very first comment is the one taking offense with the word 'bootleg' erroneously...

If your worry is about phone-home, no need to mention Android specifically. This happens with all off the shelf phones. Point is about a phone that has an OS that looks like what you would expect and just doesn't do what you expect. Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that. You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.

Anyway, just so that it is clear. Probably should end the conversation here so no one feels insulted any further.

I din't make an argument about "bootleg", I just used the term and you argued it.

Besides, depending on the actual OSI license, you can definitely have bootlegs if you really care to argue.

A bootleg does not need to be exploited commercially. It can just be counterfeit.

I am not insulting you. I am telling you that you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it.

So pedantic, you must be fun at parties. Or maybe are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Fake Android if it suits you better.

I said bootleg Android didnt I? Are Android phones using mods or a complete revamped version?

You didn't get it. I'm talking about fake Android. Not GrapheneOS or similarly a whole other OS that doesn't try to pass as Android.

It's not much import loops rather than introducing fine-grained conditional compilation, since behavior changes depending on whether a trait is imported or not. That has an effect on incremental compilation unless I am mistaken.

So even if generics were there from the 'get-go', I am not sure this exact feature would be added anyway. In fact, it is mostly contrary to Go's structural polymorphism, let alone parametric polymorphism.

Typically what you want would be defined as a function, a specific wrapper type... If it is not already a common method of each shape.

So far, I don't feel like the design of Go's generics suffers from any real issue. The implementation is not 100 percent done yet. But the plan looks sound to me.

Who wants a bootleg Android that sends all your call logs who knows where? xD

Funnily enough, I think it is in Google's best interest to comply and do the best work they can. Besides security that they might want to guarantee up to a limit, that would boost Android usage, also including their own hardware.

The future lies in a large, local-friendly ecosystem and the hardware to support it.

Gate keeping software makes even less sense nowadays.

The competition is on compute offering. Cheaper, faster, at scale. They can have a competitive advantage over incumbents if they stay smart.

Yes, so that is exactly what I don't understand, that makes compilation flow sensitive in a way that Go avoids by design in order to remain fast.

If it is so not novel, why did I never see it in Enterprise? Why is their own attempt a barebone mvp? Besides Dassault Systemes or Palantir with their Ontology product, who was doing anything adjacent? It's giving typical HN vibes ' you don't need dropbox, just sync to ftp' ;D

Ok but then why did they ask for this in a Request For Startups?

__For a concrete example, the fact you cannot define custom methods for external types in Go (a pre-1.0 design decision) means that you cannot write proper compile-time generic code to deal with some generic wrapping type (dumb example -- getting a sum of the perimeters of a generic set of shapes in an externally-defined collection type) -- you are forced to work around it with runtime type-switching. There are all sorts of arguments you can make about simplicity but this is an objective shortcoming of Go that is directly caused by generics being added to Go long post 1.0.__

I'm a bit intrigued by this: how would that work with compatibility between libraries, separate compilation and what not? My first instinct is that it would not be a good idea but I might be missing something..?

But I guess the issue is that oftentimes, it is more of a distributed system coordination issue?

What use case do you have in mind?

If I had applied to yc, I would have thought they had "distilled" my startup idea xD

No one ask them to fund it. The financial system will resolve itself. If you can't buy their product, they are not going to remain rich much longer. And AGI will make them just as irrelevant as any other person. And if they want their peace of mind, they are not going to amass huge amount of land while other people are just starving. That would be besides the point anyway, because it is going to equalize things. In the new economy, the one who can drive AI best, and who is clever enough to know what to ask gets ahead.

Yes everywhere, by definition. That's the promise of nuclear fusion for instance. Understand what a gradient is? gradient zero. That does not mean that you cant have local scarcity. Nature is not homogeneous. There will be exchanges still especially commodities. So there will be trading, well it will probably be automated anyway. So on average it is still abundance for the whole system.

It can protect you from someone patenting the same idea though.